Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Action World Model


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. No reliable secondary sources to indicate notability. Peer reviews and so forth should be collected before a Wikipedia article can be created. - Jarry1250 [ humourous – discuss ] 16:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Action World Model

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Nonnotable cosmological theory -- basically a summary of a single scientific paper written in 1997 in Brazil. No independent sources; no indication that this theory is notable, or that anyone other than its author has ever heard of it. Seems like original research. NawlinWiki (talk) 09:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC) Yes, the work is published, not in a review but in the explained form. The notary service of the BN register it, according to international copyright conventions, make it open for be consulted by anybody, divulge the list of the works, send a certain number of copies to other libraries, so that any interested person can go there and read the work. And after this also Iself sent copies to several institutes. For me, that is no worser publication than f.ex. in the old times a book publication, often paied by the author, or nowadays an e-book or web page. All this is publication, because it makes public a before unknown, secret contens, for an illimited number of persons whoever has interest to read it. With another opinion, one would justify other people / concurrent cientists read these works and publish them under their own name (so that, here, already the copyright protection makes more reliable/secure the publication). Alias, the librarie's department of deposition of elsewhere published works is another. What I really can do, is to put the work online - what's however no condition for 'published' or for a 'reliable wiki source', as most works are not online. -- I try to stop now to answer to all posts, as suggested by the moderator, and wait what they decide. wl 90.31.119.104 (talk) 11:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.31.119.104 (talk) 11:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete NawlinWiki has it right. Non-notable, screams of original research, only one source. Google doesn't turn up anything besides this article and an ad for "Santa's Action World Model". - t'shael chat 10:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Defense, not delete The original research was distributed to the most relevant institutes and discussed, inclusive on the university where the author studied. The essential 'verificable' result is about space limitations (like, black holes). The problem is that this, currently, cannot be verified experimentally.  Because of this, other pesquisers observe and discus the model, but currently is not many to say about it. No error of the model was found. It also gives an alternative, 'easy understandable' model/description (not, explanation) about the physical properties of the world at the beginning - alias, the ONLY existing models, because all other models leave to a 'maximal complicated' state where we nor know if the (nowaday's) physical laws still were correct - also about their origin, our model gives an answer.   Thus, the model is like a 'strange animal' what's under observation but nobody want to manifest about. I think about 12 years its good to write this general resume about it - about many other crazy or obviously models people do this much faster. This contribution can also induce a more wide discussion about the model.  This article in wiki is not too big, it's a mimimum merit what the model should get.  It's also by far less abstract and more 'understandable' than other physical contens in wiki --  The Santas Action World Model has absolutely nothing to do with this cosmological model.   wl59  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.31.118.135 (talk) 13:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * addition to the defense: In the astrophysics, in the last year it becomes more and more visible, that black holes have to do something with limitations/forbidding of certain information transfers and movements (not only limiting the movement of the light); this is included in the model as one of its roots. Also, it gives (I suppose as the only existing theory) about the origin of the natural forces the theory, that they are simply side-effects of the first occurences happened / informations created in the early universe, because each such fact makes it impossible and force that will not created an contrary fact.   The model is in all aspects understandable, also for the general publicum and simple persons, much more than obscure theories (like, about parallel universes etc) discused widely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.31.118.135 (talk • contribs) 2009-07-02 13:49:21
 * Delete - as thorough as that defense was it doesn't change the fact that the article is mostly original research and there aren't multiple, reliable, third-party sources for it. If the theory is as influential as the above poster claims then we should soon have enough third party sources to re-create the article. For now though, delete. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 19:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per notability and fringe theory concerns. - Running On Brains (talk page) 16:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX.Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 17:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not Delete What's most important is that the model and the wiki article is, beside of cientifically well justified, a rather 'generally-understandable' alternative to other often 'not understandable' models (which propose f.ex. a 'maximally complicated' state at the beginning; parallel worlds with certain probabilities etc; unclearness inhowfar physical laws were valid and wherefrom they came), thus it's of general interest.  It don't need to be discussed more cientifically, because everything relevant was said without serious contestation, similar like f.ex. for the Friedmann Cosmology or other models is nothing more to add.  In contrary to 100 years ago, nowadays the popular explanation and divulgation occurs more and more by internet.  However, beside of the original publication, an article for wiki should not depend on the existing of an extra home-page etc about this model or results like this.  And if  for the admissiblity for wiki is not necessary popularity, but sufficient something is known among the academics or specialists of its topic, then the original publication is sufficient.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.31.119.115 (talk) 14:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 90.31.118.135, it's pretty clear that you are, the creator of the article. It's also pretty clear that the "Wl" stands for "Werner Landgraf", the author of the paper cited. This is not least pretty clear because, as de:Benutzer:Werner.landgraf, de:Benutzer:193.248.74.133, de:Benutzer:193.250.208.137 and de:Benutzer:80.9.31.10, you were making similar arguments in the German Wikipedia, back in January 2006, when de:Wirkungs-Welt-Modell came up for deletion over there (de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/1. Januar 2006), and signing yourself "wl" there, too (as well as speaking in the first person about "my theory"). What was stated to you then by the German Wikipedia editors holds equally over here in the English Wikipedia:  A single, unpublished, monograph by you that has not been subjected to proper academic peer review is not an acceptable source.  Nor is it acceptable for you to be using either the English or German Wikipedias to promote your own inventions that have yet to be acknowledged and accepted by the world at large.  The English Wikipedia has a No original research policy, too. And if you start ranting about conspiracies of Jews and drug addicts to keep your ideas from the world, like you did over there, your editing privileges will rapidly vanish as will this article.  Uncle G (talk) 17:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The german wiki has the problem that one barely write an article, 5 min later plenty trolls and other jonkeys (which appearently 'live' in wiki and have nothing better to do than this) fall over it like grills and refuse it with the stupidest arguments which in principle can be used for blame any article.  This was already criticed from many sides, and ist certainly a reason why many people and sponsors in germany became wiki -tired (and, correctly, nobody want more support wiki financially).   In a Linux distro, the german wiki is blocked in all browsers since the install DVD, re-directed in /etc/hosts, because it's not considered as serious, and by the consumer's law the editor has this obligation to the users to protect them from questionable/unreliable sites. -- This has nothing to do with the current article in the english wiki. Although I don't agree with the evaluation by the people here, their opinions and contributions / refuses are still within the normal, not trollic like in the german wiki.  But I continue with my opinion, that wiki visibly is 'controlled' by certain interests and its objectivity and neutrality questionable.  --  Note: in the first seven contributions -- even if of different opinion -- the discusion was objective, related to the topic and to its relevance for the wiki article.  But with the previous item, 'Uncle G' start to turn it personal, a) indicating my reclamation that many information means and also wiki is hold by yews and thus not neutral, b) saying that by my former reclamations about this i could be excluded from english wiki.  With this, he confirms that wiki would not be objective. And such statements, finally, damage wiki, whose reliability and financial support become more and more precary. Affirming Uncle G that the politics of wiki.en is the same like wiki.de, justify also to block wiki.en on the quoted Linux distro too. The holders of wiki should know if they want such development of wiki, or not, and should take adequade steps.   I at least stay with the objective, article-related discusion, however reclaim against the general abuse in german wiki that it's a playground of trolls which critice everything but contribute nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.31.119.115 (talk • contribs) 2009-07-07 20:22:32
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not the place to promote your own research. This theory has no notability what so ever.(TimothyRias (talk) 10:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC))
 * Not Delete From the history/statistics of the article for 200907 I see that the article is called appr. 500 times daily, so that the topic is of general interest and interests the readers. wl
 * Merge to Non-standard cosmology, surely. The key point here is that notability does not require us to delete content completely. What it tells us is that non-notable topics shouldn't have their own articles. There's a tension between WP:N and WP:PRESERVE that occurs when a subject is verifiable but not notable, which we can only resolve by merging the disputed content to a parent article.  Also, it doesn't matter whether this model is true.  What matters is whether it's sourced.  (By analogy, Wikipedia quite rightly has an article on Bigfoot). In this case, I would recommend a heavy trim when the merge is implemented; I feel it merits a paragraph or so.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  11:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to see that there are objective persons at wiki. I'm listening suggestions for make the article better.  Generally, I think in a dictionary like wiki, complicated things should be explained general-understandable, and I tried to do this in this resume / article (this cosmological model itself is easily understandable, and the article contains less mathematics than some other articles about general relativity f.ex. Schwarzschild Solution, in the example about Lagrange- or Hamilton formalism, I also putted the most simple case H(a,b,a',b')=a', etc, but I listen suggestions to make the article more understandable/better even). wl  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.31.119.115 (talk) 12:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You've addressed notability, but entirely missed our content policies, including No original research, despite this being pointed out to be a problem above. You've stated one of the things that matters, but not actually addressed that issue.  As was spotted by German Wikipedia editors and pointed out in 2006, and as I reiterated above, the "source" here isn't a published article in a peer-reviewed journal.  It's an unpublished monograph.  There has been no peer review, or even publication.  There's no reason to think that this hypothesis has escaped its inventor and been acknowledged by the world at large.  Excluding hypotheses that no-one apart from their inventors acknowledge is one of the reasons that the No original research policy exists in the first place.  Uncle G (talk) 14:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm, that's a fair point. Let's give the author a chance to respond before I change my !vote.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  14:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Advice—I would suggest that you give thought to several matters. First, it will not help you to imply that other editors are speaking in bad faith (for example, "I'm glad to see that there are objective persons" implies that the preceding comments are not objective). This will tend to harden their hearts against you when you would be better advised to either persuade them to change their opinion, or refute their arguments (as I have done above).  It will also not endear you to the sysop (senior person) who closes this debate, who will certainly disregard logical fallacies and rhetoric in favour of a dispassionate analysis of the merits of the arguments presented. Second, Wikipedia is not a dictionary.  This is an encyclopaedia. Third, it is not usually a good idea to respond to every single person who disagrees with you. Fourth (and rather less importantly), there are hundreds of things called "wiki", including some for-profit enterprises, and abbreviating as "wiki" is ambiguous.  (Among experienced editors it would be seen as gauche.)— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  13:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * yes, with the 1st item I even violated self what before I condemned ... i later perceived. I wait now for suggestions to improve the article, if some. wl  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.31.118.188 (talk) 17:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The important thing now is that you indicate by whom, and in what language, this research was published. We've been unable to locate it in German so far.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  17:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The original work had about 85 pages and was published by a part of the BN of Brasil which also excerces the copyright protection conventions of Brazil with abroad. Any repetition of publication would not possible, for a cientific jornal the article is too long, and it would not longer be original, but republication is also not necessary.  Appr. 100 copies were sent to relevant cientific institutes with what the BN has interchange, and other copies by meself.  Iself sent a copy to a university where I studied, where the model was discused, nothing obviously wrong was found. But like all cosmological models, it has his assumptions/hypotheses which one cannot proof, even if they are plausible and can explain many (like here, that each fact one time happening in the world, limits the freedom degree / Freiheitsgrad of further happenings in the sense that cannot happen an opposite fact, and that in this sense the natural forces are the remaining side-effect of the first occured facts), so that obviusly everybody is careful and nobody would say 'this model is the absolute trueness'.  Formally, however, is not much to add; in the last 12 years I continued to calculate around on the model and see that it can explain many (what also gave me animation to write a resume for wiki, in oposite to any theory what after reveals to being wrong and thus better to forget). But it depends like all models on its basical assumptions, and everything what one can cleanly derive from this assumptions is that already said.   Similar like the whole gravitational theory, where since the solutions of Einsteins Feldgleichungen and the Schwarzschild solutions appr. 100 years ago, not was increased much more really significant else -- but one continue to wait that observations confirm more and more these assumptions and the model. Formally, the Schw. solution is that what was calculated at that time, nothing more to add, with slightly different assumptions, or additions, one get slightly different models like f.ex. Kerr or Robertson-Walker metric etc. -- I repeat that our model together with the very plausible assumption above is apearently the only which makes plausible wherefrom the natural forces come.  -- One should still remember that in the last time, not everything is longer published exclusively by books, and also important informations and discusions often happens informal, or in the last years even via internet.  Generally spoken, wiki should adapt it to this situation, and not demand too strong or obsolete conditions like publication in populair books for something be 'notorical'.  For this may be sufficient be known within academic circles or specialists, and wiki contains articles f.ex. about general relativity, cosmology etc with formulas which are not populairly understandable for persons without suficient pre-requisites. 90.31.118.188 (talk) 18:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.31.118.188 (talk) 18:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * One can find the register of the work here: http://www.bn.br/portal/index.jsp?plugin=FbnBuscaEDA  , type in "Wirkungsprinzip" as title.   Obs: that the topics was characterized as 'religious', although full of formulas, is a mistake of the workers at the BN which are no specialists about cosmology, and that at the time of the submission it wasnt yet published is normal and condition of the acceptance. The work is not yet scanned and put online (like many newer publications), but I reserved me that right of own divulgation, and could do this.  wl  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.31.118.188 (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think "BN" means, roughly, "national library" in this context. Would I be right in thinking there's not yet been a peer review?— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  22:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If there are no books, no reviews, and no anything on this, thenit's not ready for Wikipedia. Get published in a peer-reviewed journal, be mentionned favourably in reviews, and then'll this will be ready for wikipedia. Not before.Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 23:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "BN" in this context is, as observed in the 2006 discussion, the Biblioteca Nacional in Rio de Janeiro. It is a copyright library, not a publication house.  And it certainly doesn't perform academic peer review of unpublished monographs deposited in it. Uncle G (talk) 05:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I readed just the notability and, within this as one sufficient criterion, the reliable-source criterion, of wiki. One should see that reviews are only one possibility of different. I wrote about 20 longer pubs and about 80 shorter notes about physical results, almost all in refereed jornals and all citated at least 1 time by other persons.  That the cosmological model it's not published in a review, is to 90% due to the lenght, to 10% because (justified by the topics) I take the freedom, in the publication, to approach me to the basical hipotheses of the model by previous general considerations. It happened that later I changed my interests and I occupied me with informatics, so that I didn't longer take care of physical topics. My cosmological model however I consider as my most important result; I examined afterwards several aspects under its light and always found confirmed that it is correct. This is also the reason why I resumed it to a wiki article (whereas I don't take care or mention in corresponding wiki articles my other results published in refereed jornals). --  I should remember that on the scientific area, historically many was produced or published by books, where often the author paied the printing. One example are P.Jordan 's cosmological ideas, afterwards often citated. Nowadays we have publication by internet.  I could publish online the original work, increased still by some of the later results (however, these changes are refered only to details, irrelevant for the resume in wiki), but I think that such a repetition of the publication should not be a condition for the model be mentioned in wiki. Because published and divulged it was anyway, even if not in a refered jornal.  And I think its suficient for the reliable-source conditions of wiki.  When there would be a substantial error, already colegues of the (very qualified) university where I studied would have told me this, and then I certainly wouldn't resume the model longer anywhere; on the other hand, currently most of the diverse cosmological models (or better of their hypotheses) cannot be proved so that nobody would affirm "this or that model is the only correct".  Also here in wiki, the model should be mentioned as one of several cosmological models, with its own merits (things what it better or more plausible, simple or "natural" explain than other models); people recognized it, discused it, but at the moment more one cannot do.   --  I want still add that also a encyclopedia never claims to know or to contain only the trueness.  Instead, it contains the actual "state of art/cience", even with a selection of different hipotheses (if not completely unqualified).  See we f.ex. the (auto-published) books of H.Kelsen with philosophical considerations about right.  In the 2nd edition, he revoces many of what he wrote in the 1st edition, and in the 3rd edition is such a chaos that nobody understand longer what is still valid and what not. During the live, the man changed his ideas.  Even so were citated all 3 works, because "state-of-art", and in the praxis everybody uses what is most best for him ... (most often is used the 1st edition of Reine Rechtslehre). I didn't check it but suppose that wiki write about all 3 editions and their theories/opinions by Kelson.  My cosmological model is not so confuse or auto-revogated; as said, later, approaching me from other aspects to the question, I always found that it must be correct.  --  Ref. another aspect of the notability, as said, also the history > statistics of this wiki article shows enough interest; each of the last days appr. 500 calls  -- According to the suggestion of the modulator, I don't write now more, and wait suggestions how to modify the article, alone or for merging with the general topic.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.31.118.188 (talk) 00:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The suggestion that you'll receive is the same one that you received 3 years ago at the German Wikipedia and that Headbomb has restated above: Get your physics theories peer reviewed and published via the existing, and long-standing, proper academic mechanisms for publishing new science. Wikipedia is not a shortcut around that process.  You were told all this three years ago, several times.  Uncle G (talk) 05:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * delete This was never published, just deposited with the National library. There is no reason to merge this if there is no published comment on it, and I do not see how there is at all likely to be. DGG (talk) 00:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.